Subject:
|
Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 13 Oct 2001 03:51:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
681 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Horst Lehner writes:
> > > > > False. There are no natural monopolies. Monopolies only exist because • there
> > > > > are unnatural barriers to entry erected by governments
> > > >
> > > > ...or corporations...
> > >
> > > With government assistance.
> > >
> > > Free market corporations can erect no such barriers. Not effective ones,
> > > anyway.
> >
> > Can you elaborate a bit on government assistance for, say, Microsoft, then?
>
> MS is not a monopoly.
>
> It has competitors, and effective ones at that. MS is dominant in certain
> market segments but since there are few or no barriers to entry other than
> MS competence at making good product,
I'd re-word that "...competence at making a reasonable product and marketing it
well,"
> the net result of MS dominance (not
> monopoly) is that we pay less for OS and app than we would without them.
>
> Classic dominance situation. c.f. the Standard oil "monopoly" which was
> *not*, and under which we paid the lowest price for oil ever, or since. See
> Friedman.
>
> Before everyone says MS is trash... whatever. Get over yourself. Consider
> the alternatives. Windows, Word, eXcel and explorer are superior products
> that have served us exceedingly well. Bugs and all.
Again, I'd say reasonable, not necessarily superior. Depends what features
you're comparing, what you need to do.
And they're "undocumented features" 8?)
> In fact, you inadvertantly raise a connected but dissimilar point. MS did
> *not* get any government assistance!
That's a very general statement - can you back it up?
> And voila... look what happened.
>
> Industries that get the least "assistance" and the least regulation and the
> least shielding from big nasty competitors tend to produce the best stuff
> with the fastest growth and make the most money for all concerned. (MS makes
> *me* heaps of money (even though I currently own way less MSFT than I wish I
> did) because I can do things with MS systems I could never do back in 1980
> for a reasonable cost... That is money in my pocket.) The PC industry is THE
> canonical example of this.
MS also makes *me* heaps of money, 'cos most of my (working) income comes from
working with their software. And "free" software is not necessarily cheaper
either, as it often involves a larger investment of time. Again, it depends
what you're wanting to use it for.
For the average Joe Bloe, wanting to do his letters, balance his home accounts,
and keep his kids occupied with games, MS is a very good option, and I'd
recommend it. Nnote that I'm not saying I wouldn't recommend it to anyone else.
> Arguably the internet revolution bubble burst at least in part because of
> the Clinton DOJ going after MS, and the rumbles about taxing internet
> transactions (well, maybe 20% of it is due to that, the other is 40%
> irrational exuberance and 40% greenspan putting the brakes on way too hard
> for no reason at all that I can see. Some Randite HE is! (just kidding) )
ROSCO
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) MS is not a monopoly. It has competitors, and effective ones at that. MS is dominant in certain market segments but since there are few or no barriers to entry other than MS competence at making good product, the net result of MS dominance (...) (23 years ago, 13-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
173 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
